Skip to main content

Full text of "Flora Indica Vol-I"

See other formats

234                                  FLORA INDICA.                   [Nymplwacee.

considers the seeds as truly Dicotyledonous, but the rhizome as Endogenous ; lastly,
llenfrey, who confines Ms attention soleiy to the rhizome, and of Victoria only, con-
siders this to he more Endogenous than Exogenous.

Por our own parts> *ite -consider that these Orders are truly Dicotyledonous, and
that the rhizome,- though? not strictly speaking Exogenous, is by no means Eiidogc-
nops, that there are no Monocotyledouous Orders to which they have aiiy affinity,
and that the arguments hitherto adduced to the contrary are based upon what ap-
pear to us to be very feeble analogies.

In. stating our reasons for these opinions, we need hardly say that we do so with
the utmost deference to the great authorities from whom we differ, especially our
friend Dr. Lindley (to whose profound knowledge of structure and affinities we are in
the habit of resorting in cases of difficulty), and M. Trocul, whose admirable essays
on the anatomy of Nitphar, Victoria, and Nelimbium (Annales dcs Sciences INa-
turellcs, ser. 3. iv. 286 ; ser. 4. i 145, 293) are no less elaborate than lucid and
exhaustive of the subject,   Wherever it has been possible, we have followed the ob-
servations of the last-named author ou the living plants ; but whilst bearing willing
testimony to his accuracy and skill as a phytotomisl, we must also record our dissent
from the conclusions he draws from the facts observed.   In removing NymphaMcfrc
to a distance from NelumUacea, he has overlooked structural and morphological
considerations, and attached undue importance to anatomical and physiological de-
tails ; and whilst we admit that; in an abstract point of view the value of such details
cannot be over-estimated, in a systematic one we believe that they will be found ca-
pable of a very different interpretation.  In illustration of our meaning, we have only
to refer to what has been demonstrated under Menityermac&r, where closely allied
genera and species Lave wood of so totally diiFcrent an anatomical structure, thai in n
physiological point of view they could never be supposed to be allied.    Similar iu-
stauccs, indeed, abound iu the vegetable kingdom : witness the structure of the em-
bryo, the germination and anatomy of Citseuttt, a genus which totally (inters iu all
these respects from other Convolculacea, hut which is an undoubted member of that-
Qrder; the wide departure from the normal structure and mode of growth of Sero-
f&utarin&t displayed by Orobanchs, Lathraa, and Melampyrum; the structural,
anatomical, and functional differences between terrestrial and epiphytical Orcliide.cs;
between jim&rosinia and other 4roidece (see Griffith iu Linn. Soe. Trans, xx. 203) ;
and lastly, between the species of Corydalis belonging to the sections Capnites and
Bulbocapnos, the germination of one of which is apparently JMonocolylcdonous, and
of the other Dicotyledonous.   In these and nil similar cases we cannot but conclude
that the value of the physiological differences implied by the extreme diversity of
anatomical details is to be explained by morphological and structural laws, and is not
real but apparent.   Tf such remarkable differences occur in closely allied genera and
species, it follows that we may expect as groat resemblances to occur in plants be-
longing to the most widely different natural families; and we believe the similarity
of the rhizome of NyvupJtaacea to that of Kudogens, and the partial resemblance of
tfafi habit and foliage of this Order to that of llydrocharide&t are instances; and of
such a* these every large Natural Order presents us with, examples.
We shall now examine— 1, embryo; 2, germination ; and 3, rhizome of Nympha-

1. Embryo- The peculiarities of this organ are detailed iu the ordinal character.
Its truly Dicotyledonous structure was first shown by J)c Caiidollc, and shortly after-
wards by Mirbel and Salisbury, and their conclusions have been assented to by al-
most every subsequent observer, except Lindley, who expresses himself doubtfully;
and perhaps Plaachon, The latest views of the latter author we only gather from
Trecul'a paper on Victoria, which states (1. c. p. 145) that Planchon has announced
tli« embryo pf that plant to be Monoeotyledoaous, adding, however, that Banchon'a
plate represents a Dicotyledonous embryo, "le mieux conform* qae Ton pcut ima-
giner/' And we may add that in M. Planchoa's ' Etudes dcs Nympheacm' (Ann.
Soc. Nat. ser. 3, lii. 8, 31), he describes the embryos of both Nympluea and lrk-
ivria as truly Dicotyledonous, Id'adlcy (Veg. Kingd. 400) diseases the subject fully